A Promise Broken… but Only for a Night!

I know that I told everyone that tonight I would offer the second part of the reason and values article. And I really tried to make it happen. Mrs. Weapon needed a little extra of my time tonight. I then started to get to work and found that I was rushing through in order to finish it tonight. As a result I ended up with a rant that had no coherent thought. I erased it all and started over. But I cannot finish it tonight without ending up with something I would not be comfortable posting. So I will push it to tomorrow and offer something quick this evening.

Before I do, I wanted to note that I was reading through the comments from the weekend and noticed the somewhat “tense” conversations happening between several of you. I won’t say that any of you crossed any lines, but both sides certainly crept right up to the line. I humbly ask that everyone take a step back and let it all sink in, then re-engage giving each other a little benefit of the doubt, rather than remaining in the current pattern. For the record, I have to chuckle when I say that the back and forth there was some of the most uncivil civility (or most civil uncivility) that I have ever witnessed. 😉 Let’s all remember why I have my rules. The idea is for different ideas to understand one another, not bash one another. I know sometimes I see folks being difficult on both sides, but starting from a stance of respect for one another is the only way we show our true principles and values as being better than those other vitriolic political sites out there. You are not children, so I am not lecturing…. I know everyone gets my point. Sometimes I just have to say it out loud again to make myself feel better.

In lieu of writing another article this evening (or rather this morning) and being at it until 5:00 am, I offer this article from the Huffington Post on global warming and the actions that should or should not be taken. The article is from author Michael Shermer, who according to his bio is the Publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com), the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, a monthly columnist for Scientific American (www.sciam.com), and the author of Why People Believe Weird Things, How We Believe, and The Science of Good and Evil.

Chill Out: An Economic Triage for Global Climate Change

Are you a global warming skeptic, or are you skeptical of the global warming skeptics? Your answer depends on how you answer these five questions: 1. Is the earth getting warmer? 2. Is the cause of global warming human activity? 3. How much warmer is it going to get? 4. What are the consequences of a warmer climate? 5. How much should we invest in altering the climate? Here are my answers.

Global warming is real and primarily human caused. With questions 3 and 4, however, estimates include error bars that grow wider the further out we run the models because complex systems like climate are notoriously difficult to predict. I provisionally accept the estimate of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the mean global temperature by 2100 will increase by 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit, and that sea levels will rise by about one foot (about the same as they have risen since 1860). Moderate warming with moderate changes.

Question 4 deserves even more skepticism. In his carefully-reasoned and politically-bipartisan book Cool It (Alfred Knopf, 2008), the “skeptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg notes that if global warming continues unchecked through the end of the century there will be 400,000 more heat-related deaths annually; there will also be 1.8 million fewer cold-related deaths, for a net gain of 1.4 million lives. This is not to say that global warming is good, only that its consequences must be weighed in the balance. For example, Lomborg sites data from the World Wildlife Fund that at most we will lose 15 polar bears a year due to global warming, but what doesn’t get reported is that 49 bears are shot each year. What would be more cost-effective to save polar bear lives — spend hundreds of billions of dollars to lower CO2 emissions and (maybe) the mean global temperature, or limit hunting permits?

This leads to question 5 — the economics of global climate change — which I think needs a sound dose of skepticism, particularly since the collapse of our economy. Even if all countries had ratified the Kyoto Protocol and lived up to its standards (which most did not), according to the IPCC, at best it would have postponed the 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit average increase just five years from 2100 to 2105, at a cost of $180 billion a year! By comparison, although global warming may cause an increase of two million deaths due to hunger annually by 2100, the U.N. estimates that for $10 billion a year we could save 229 million people from hunger annually today. It’s time for economic triage.

Economics is about the efficient allocation of limited resources that have alternative uses. And after the U.S. government allocated a trillion dollars of our limited resources to shore up our flagging financial foundations, those alternative uses have never seemed so pressing. Should we (can we?) really allocate the equivalent of a Manhattan Project to lower CO2 emissions 50 percent by 2050 and 80 percent by 2100, as the IPCC recommends in order to divert disaster? My answer is no. Why? Because the potential benefits for the costs incurred are simply not warranted.

If you had, say, $50 billion a year to make the world a better place for more people, how would you spend it? In 2004, Lomborg asked this question to a group of scientists and world leaders, including four Nobel laureates. This “Copenhagen Consensus,” as it is called, ranked reduction of CO2 emissions 16th out of 17 challenges. The top four were: controlling HIV/AIDS, micronutrients for fighting malnutrition, free trade to attenuate poverty, and battling malaria. A 2006 Copenhagen Consensus of U.N. ambassadors constructed a similar list, with communicable diseases, clean drinking water, and malnutrition at the top, and climate change at the bottom. A late 2008 meeting that included five Nobel Laureates recommended that President-elect Barack Obama allocate his promised $150 billion in subsidies for new technologies and $50 billion in foreign aid be allocated for research on malnutrition, immunization, and agricultural technologies. For a cool Kyoto $180 billion you can buy a lot of condoms, vitamin tablets, and mosquito nets and rescue hundreds of millions of people from disease, starvation, and impoverishment.

If you are skeptical of Lomborg and his branch of environmental skepticism, read the Yale University economist William Nordhaus’ technical book A Question of Balance (Yale University Press, 2008). Nordhaus computes the costs-benefits of various recommendations for changing the climate by either 2105 or 2205, primarily focused on the cost of curbing carbon emissions. Economists like to compute future profits and losses based on investments made today, adjusting for the value of a future dollar at an average interest rate of four percent. If we spent a trillion dollars today (the equivalent of the recent bailout or the Iraq war), how much climate change would it buy us in a century at four percent interest? Nordhaus’s calculations are compared to doing nothing, where a plus value is better and a minus value worse than doing nothing. Kyoto with the U.S. is plus one and without the U.S. zero, for example, and a gradually increasing global carbon tax is a plus three. That is, a $1 trillion cost today buys us $3 trillion of benefits in a century. Al Gore’s proposals, by contrast, score a minus 21, where $1 trillion invested today in Gore’s plans would net us a loss of $21 trillion in 2105.

Add to these calculations the numerous other crises we face, such as the housing calamity, the financial meltdown, the coming collapse of social security and medicare, two wars, a failing public education system, etc.

In my opinion we need to chill out on all extremist plans that entail expenses best described as Brobdingnagian, require our intervention into developing countries best portrayed as imperialistic, or involve state controls best portrayed as fascistic. Give green technologies and free markets a chance.

What I really liked about Shermer’s article here is that the approach taken is not the doom and gloom nonsense that most of the climate change folks seem to have taken. It makes his position approachable. Obviously, I disagree with his conclusions on questions #1 and #2, but that isn’t the point. The point is that he isn’t allowing certain conclusions to completely make him accept other conclusions. As I have often said, and written several articles to support, I think the entire idea of manmade global warming is complete BS, and I am skeptical of the idea that the earth is even still warming at all. But What he does here is expose the realities of the economic consequences of the green movement that is afoot in the world.

Shermer appears to be a guy I could sit down and have a beer and really discuss the topic with logic and reason. Isn’t that a refreshing thing to see from the other side! I hope today that we can have some good discussions around global warming again. I know that the data and stories and articles continue to be published and discussed. And I know that several people here continue to follow it very closely. I have stopped following it closely because I don’t think the data actually matters a single bit to those pushing this agenda.

I will now sit back and wait for Ray to tell me I am pushing a secret Republican agenda and for GG to tell me that we must take control of the environment because 4 trillion trees cannot possibly be expected to get along on their own. That will be followed by JAC pointing out that the trees have not yet embraced their natural right to sway in the breeze regardless of what the wind says and BF will say that the best thing we can do is ignore the trees, as our breathing oxygen only gives them legitimacy. Chris Devine will point out the plight of the poor underbrush living in squalor because the trees steal all the sunlight get tall on the backs of the bushes. Judy will just love the fact that she can sit in the shade of the tree and Esom will shoot the squirrel living in the tree and serve it with homemade peach liquor.

And hopefully everyone above will realize that I was simply having a lot of fun with that last paragraph. I hope you all know I value you and meant not a single word in a malicious way. Smile. It’s Monday. And that means Monday Night Football. Too bad its the Cowboys.

Comments

Good article, thinking about what that climate change money can buy. I saw malaria mentioned, and remember that environmentalists got DDT outlawed many years ago. But that’s OK, good form of population control. Looks like another SCAM to redistribute and waste our tax dollars.

I’m back in the Gulf on the Thunder Horse, and the oil/gas is flowing!! Will be home tomorrow for a week or 2. Drill here, drill now!! Try getting all those plastic water bottles from a windmill.

Naw, they threw them under the bus. That is Obama’s style – just like Hitler threw his brown-shirts under the bus after they got him into the Chancellery.

I think it is called “Gratitude with an attitude” or something like that.

No matter, good riddance. However, be forewarned that ACORN will just resurface with a different name – just like everything else in the big lie, if you change the wording then you can get away with it because the sheeple will never notice.

I wonder what the net gain was in dumping ACORN? I assume there was something socially redeeming that they offered. Now we’re left looking in the smoldering ashes and trying to understand what actually happened and who ultimately suffers for good works that the good apples in the organization. You can always find skeletons in the closet of a company that large. Also interesting is that bombast the right plays to this versus both sides continuing to sweep outfits like Blackwater under the carpet. I’m not an Acorn nuthugger – I just think USW and a lot of other folks took the easy road on this w/o all the facts – the facts are what still remain to be seen.

I didn’t take the easy road. I have been studying ACORN for over a year and reading everything I can get my hands on.

And I also have at no point backed Blackwater. I almost went to work for them when I left the military. I am so very glad I didn’t. I wish I could say I declined for moral reasons, but the reality at the time was I simply didn’t like their offer.

USW – what I’m suggesting that is in your analysis of Acorn I saw nothing that spoke to what I am alluding to here. The easy route I mean to be the cherry picked information that can easily point to things that have gone wrong with the organization – what garners no play is the net effect balanced against good works. I could use the military as an example and easily research all the bad things that Special Forces soldiers have done in the last 20 years and paint a stark picture on them – if I don’t assess that against the frame of what they have done good or well, then I haven’t really done any analysis – I’ve merely taken an ideological slant and found facts that support that.

Take also the example of this article you shared. To paraphrase – it is interesting and compelling to see a different economic light placed upon the proposals for reversing supposed man-made climate change. The potential economical realities give pause if I believe the numbers and analysis given herein (x investment/spend now will only provide y benefit in z years – the impact being far less than what one may expect). I ask you to apply the same to the quasi-analysis you provide herein – if, comparatively, Acorn receives only 5% of the Federal money of say, a Blackwater, then why are we (or better, you) so focused on Acorn versus Blackwater? I suggest your sights are trained on the wrong ‘enemy’ (and thus why I occasionally say ‘what’s with this guy – the bigger problem is right in front of him – just not as politically palatable’). I don’t condone people that receive Federal $$$ providing ‘guidance’ on how to evade IRS laws for setting up prostitution – but how is that different than a firm receiving 50X that money dicking around drinking beer from each others asses while they are supposed to be protecting our folks abroad (to boot – it may not have been B-Water employees – I’m just using an example).

What this smacks of is a potential double standard and hypocrisy wherein the Acorns of the world (orgs from the left) are pursued relentlessly as pariahs while the best you can offer on a Blackwater is that had the offer been right you may have been one of the guys drinking beer from ass (all in the name of ‘good, clean fun’)? C’mon!

All of the pertinent facts that we need to know about ACORN are shown in the videos 🙂

As far as Blackwater, I will bet you a cookie that they are still doing contract work for the government right now as we speak, and I don’t hear anyone on the left bitching about it now that it is happening under Obama instead of Bush… so who are the hypocrites?

“All the pertinent facts that we need to know about ACORN are shown in the videos:)

First – thanks for evidencing what is an underscored point I have offered several times now. Your ‘analysis’ shows an unfortunate lack of intellectual curiosity regarding what is the body of evidence and how do we adequately place analysis over it. I suppose we (or at least you) can take the tactic that even one transgression, no matter how big or small, by any one employee of any one company should render our opinion of the company or entity as a whole (and likely necessitate us not providing any economic benefit to said company). I guess for most of us that would leave us in fairly dire straits as we slowly eliminate every entity ‘cuz they done us wrong’. Is everyone that was previously affected by Acorn better off as a result of the videos? I am suggesting they likely are not – hundreds if not thousands of people that could have benefited from the programs of Acorn now stand to suffer because this action.

Second – with respect to BW – I am also certain they still get mucho dinero from the US Government – money that makes Acorn money look like pocket change. It is a far greater injustice that little to nothing has been done to investigate them. Please notice I am not saying yank their contracts – I am suggesting they be fully investigated and punished commensurate with their actions.

I remember my dad’s PERSONAL problems with ACORN (detailed elsewhere in comments on this blog). I need no documentaries or anything to know what they do, and how they are harming people by their actions.

Kent – I do recall your comments. But I would ask if that is emblematic of the entire organization or an isolated incident? We can take most any large organization and see the bad/evil and assume it is all rather than some that make it so.

Never underestimate the uber greenies willingness to cry wolf nor their zealousness in replying to that very same anticipated call.

Bottom line here is that “The Data” itself is being sequestered away from academia, now that some want to work out the presented conclusions as science once did rather than accept what’s being held aloft in blind faith, and in some drastic cases outright destroyed. What researcher destroys the collected data their papers and findings are based upon?!?

The real question about global warming… climate change… weather is “Why the NEED for using and accepting previously unheard of levels of variance in both the formula and data set?”

But even if 1 & 2 are right, I still agree that throwing a lot of money at the problem will not fix it.

I don’t think we should do nothing. We should maintain the slow environmental path we have been for years now. Bush already had us on an environmental plan to reduce emissions by 18% by 2012. And that is on top of what we have already done. Those who say that the US has done nothing need to go find the real information. We have been steadily cutting down on emissions for at least 20 to 30 years.

Despite all the rhetoric from the greenies, there is just no way economically possible for the world to stop most carbon emissions quickly without stopping the entire world’s economy or killing off ALL of the people on the Earth. If we go with option B, I volunteer all the greenies to go first.

“Let’s all remember why I have my rules. The idea is for different ideas to understand one another, not bash one another.”

USW has set rules (which make perfect sense to me–the unreasonable, savage one), but there will no doubt be others (within the 300,000,000) who will not only not care for those rules, they’d be downright against them (and thus feel like slaves?). Is USW a government? What gives him the right to set rules? Why should any of us abide by them?

Calm down, I’m not being an anarchist here. I’m simply using the above as an example for BF … for the question he’s never answered (not once). Who sets the rules without a government? How are they enforced (without agreement between people)? Remember not everyone believes in a higher power (so-called natural law will not apply in all instances). Also remember that answering these questions with another set of questions is horseshit (excuse the french). Answer the question, BF.

USW suggested you do not believe in gov’t but that there’s a difference between having a gov’t and having rules. I don’t see how it’s possible. For example, USW is the government here; it’s his ball. If he wants to take it home and not play he can. He has the power. So how do the rest of us keep him from doing that without a government? How do we not feel like slaves for abiding by his rules? Who decides whether his rules are “reasonable” or not?

Once again, calling me an unreasonable savage laden with contradictions is not a FOCKING (NOTE THE “O” and not the “U”) ANSWER … it is merely more horseshit.

Ahhhh, I don’t exactly find you unreasonable GG. You stated that you are a real, sho’ ’nuff Socialist. They ain’t no arguing with that. I think you are wrong as hell, but that is for you, if you’re satified with that position, I won’t argue with it.

If you’ve noticed, I too have had my times with BF’s philosophy from time to time. All of us have. All I can say is, right or wrong, he stays to what he believes and won’t back off or down. I know first hand how frustrating that is.

Esom. I’m actually starting to stray from pure socialism (once again). I was a devout Dem until I returned to the legit world and saw how fugazy (fake) that party was. I’ve always had an absurd work ethic (working hard) and just didn’t get all the nonsense I witnessed first hand in corporate America when I returned to the legit world. I veered right and was a passionate defender of the right until W’s administration could no longer be defended (to me). I opt for Nader, but in writing for another blog the last few days, I’m noticing that I’m very uneasy with the government running things en masse (the incompetence factor). I’m not sure socialism is the answer. I do think we need more financial regulation but that has to come from people who aren’t owned by financial institutions (currently our gov’t).

So, I guess I’m still in flux. I know I won’t vote for either major party ever again (they’re corrupted beyond repair), but I’m not sure I’d go pure socialist or even Ralph Nader anymore. I do believe in a strong defense and some of Nader’s defense policies I find naive. I guess I just don’t know.

What I do know is that 300,000,000 cannot coexist without a structure of government to keep divergent wants/needs in check (from chaos).

I am a registered Republican, but, like you I’m not going to just vote for anybody anymore. I don’t know if I will be able to vote for anyone next election because I’m not going to just pick between crap and crappier.

It will take a lot from a candidate to get my vote next time. NOT being a Politician would be a start. But only a start.

GG: Your re-examination of your politics, to me, is a sign of an honest man open to new information. If I might be so bold as to try to help, I offer the following for your consideration.

I worked inside the federal government for 35 years and saw many different agencies very close up. Let me tell you, government in general and the federal government in particular is inherently incapable of being competent over the long term; in many cases not even in the short term.

There are many reasons for this. Among them is that they must operate consistent with rigid rules set by law or regulation or internal policies. The worst decision imaginable could be blessed if it follows all the rules. Also, there is no self-correcting mechanism when things go wrong. When a company screws up, it loses money; when the government screws up, nothing happens. The personnel system is like everything else: rigid rules with ridiculous enforcement requirements. Thus, it is impossible to fire incompetent people. There are many more reasons; these are the main ones.

That’s why I think government should do as little as possible and government activity should be as decentralized as possible.

I already addressed this. Vastly accepted is not universally accepted. No “law” (natural or otherwise) is ever going to get 100% support. In fact, many are going to be along the lines of 50-50. Then what?

Most rule? Simple majority rule? Aren’t those in the minority disenfranchised? Or, as BF would call them, “slaves?”

Actually, no, GG. Leave the house and do not go by his rules. Freedom gives you the power to reason and leave. While you are correct, that being in his house with rules and that is a form of government, you are not forced to stay…hence the power is actually in your hands…no?

Yes, D13, I agree, but the bigger question was how do 300,000,000 walk about freely without bumping into one another. It works in a closed vacuum (USW’s house/blog) but not in the greater world. My question was to BF regarding this: How do we co-exist without rules and/or how do we create rules without government? Agreeing is an ambiguous answer because there would have to be mass agreeing for 300,000,000 not to clobber each other over individiaul wants/needs.

Kahty, it’s the rules that has me dogged in BF’s hypothesis. I don’t see how we have rules without a social contract. It’s why I refuse to deal with BF’s individual vs. the whole argument (the contradiction he claims inherent in someone not trust the nature of man (like I don’t trust it), but then trusting a group of men (got’t). I simply believe that man will “most often” look out for his interests and that sometimes compromising on principles (for the sake of the greatergood (a group of men) is a must for the sake of long term survival.

Natural Law is one thing to one person and another thing to someone else (even thou shalt not kill). It depends on whose ox is gored. If a society believes in sending its elderly out on a canoe to die because that person is no longer useful, who are others to say it’s wrong (in a truly free society)? I think it’s wrong, but therein sits the problem–we’ll never get 100% agreement without people making compromises and compromises are not going to exist between completely free (to do whatever they want) people (especially when they don’t agree on common or natural law). Some are godless; others are simply unobservant.

The Power to set rules does not make a government. We all have power to various degress that bear on various things. We are not government.

USW is a private person and his house is his private property. Same for his web site.

It is YOUR decision to violate your standards by accepting rules you disagree with. You are a private person making a personal decision.

Govt is not involved at all, nor anything that resembles a govt.

USW can not initiate coersive force against you for agreeing or disagreeing with his rules. If you violate the rules he will ask you to leave his house. If you continue he will remove you from his house.

“USW is a private person and his house is his private property. Same for his web site.”

EXACTLY … so what happens when you have 300,000,000 private persons (with 300,000,000 different sets of rules)? How do you handle that situation without government/without rules?

You don’t is my point. It is impossible. I might agree to USW’s rules (even if I don’t want to–I don’t feel like a slave for doing so), but what happens when 299,999,999 others want in on the house/blog? Chaos, my brother. No way around it.

The point is that there are rules, always have been. But have not always had Government as we know it to exist.

The challenge for you, right now, is that asking someone to answer your 300,000,000 question you are ignoring the thinking required to get to that question.

If you do not start from the beginning, in terms of philosophical exploration, you will erroneously assume that an answer is not possible.

If you accept as your premise that every human will disagree and that we will all prey on each other like savage dogs, then you are still wrong. Because a govt run by mad dogs will get the same result as society of mad dogs. The dogs will destroy themselves.

Your claims of chaos are based on assumptions that are not supported by history or anything we can find in the real world. Will some chaos occur if we suddenly changed? Yes. Would society devolve into the appocolypse of sci fi movies? I very much doubt it.

What are the rules that “have always been?” List them so I can be enlightened. Teach me how to think.

The problem for you (and BF) is the following: Once you list them (actually answer a question), your answers are then subject to debate (which both of you are obviously terrified of). So, I’ll ask it again anyway. What are the rules that have always been? Who made them up? What authority do you have to present them and how are they enforced?

A reasoned person would recognize that this is USW’s locality, and as such, he sets the rules. Those of us that wish to play in his sandbox do our best to abide by his rules. He is not completely despotic… if there is a rule that we do not like, he is willing to consider changing that rule.

However, all of us here, regardless of our own political/philosophical bent, recognize this domain as USW’s house, and we all know that a man sets his own rules in his own house.

I am surprised you did not know that.

Indeed, this is what anarchy is based upon. I set the rules in my house, you set the rules in your house. In order for my house and your house to get along, we must come to agreement as to what is acceptable behavior between each other’s houses so that we may have commerce between our houses.

If I find the rules of your house abhorrent, it is possible that there will be no agreement between my house and yours and we will have no commerce. In response to this, we can either ignore each other (the sensible and prudent thing to do), or one of us can decide that “my rules of my house are better than your rules of your house” and then the one of us that decides that can go about TRYING TO FORCE MY RULES ON YOU because I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR RULES.

In reality though, WHAT DO I CARE what the rules in YOUR HOUSE are? I DON’T LIVE THERE! So, the prudent and wise thing is for me to recognize that in your house, you are indeed the king, and in my house I am indeed the king. If we, as kings, can come to an agreement as to how to conduct business amongst ourselves, this will be a good thing and will allow us to trade our knowledge and the fruits of our labors. If we cannot reach an agreement, it is of no real consequence, provided that we agree to respect the fact that you are the king of your house, and I am the king of my house, and we may not initiate force against each other’s houses for any reason.

So, basically, those of us at this site recognize that THIS IS USW’S “HOUSE” and therefore he sets the rules. If you do not agree to his rules in his house, you need not come and play 🙂

“if there is a rule that we do not like, he is willing to consider changing that rule.”

How do you know? Suppose he isn’t willing to do so? What makes you so sure?

“we must come to agreement as to what is acceptable behavior between each other’s houses so that we may have commerce between our houses.”

How does that happen between USW and me, never mind 300,000,000?

“If I find the rules of your house abhorrent, it is possible that there will be no agreement between my house and yours and we will have no commerce.”

Or, in the case of 300,000,000, you’ll have anarchy, but do continue …

“In response to this, we can either ignore each other (the sensible and prudent thing to do), or one of us can decide that “my rules of my house are better than your rules of your house” and then the one of us that decides that can go about TRYING TO FORCE MY RULES ON YOU because I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR RULES.”

And? I guess we’re back to anarchy, huh? Because there is nothing to check one from the other; the stronger and/or smarter will prevail. That leaves a large percentage of that 300,000,000 doing what exactly?

“So, basically, those of us at this site recognize that THIS IS USW’S “HOUSE” and therefore he sets the rules. If you do not agree to his rules in his house, you need not come and play.”

Frustrated are you? ALL CAPS shows it. But, you make my point once again for me. Now that I (and my minions) can’t play in USW’s house, but we like the rug he has (and it is a fine rug—so special there are only so many of it produced). We like it so much we want it to share (to use in our house 3 days a week). Perhaps we take it. What’s to stop us? You’re resist? Big deal. You have civil war on your hands; anarchy that still leaves you with an impossible situation.

I also do not have to convince you of anything, because whether you, individually, are ever convinced or not is of no real consequence.

I know that USW would CONSIDER (note that I did use the term CONSIDER) changing a rule of this “house” if he were asked to, because I know him to be a gracious host. Just because he would consider a change does not mean he would MAKE a change.

If I disagree with his rules, I am FREE to not come and play. If I refuse to FOLLOW the rules, USW is FREE to ask me to leave his “house” or is free to bar my participation if I do not choose to leave when I am asked to do so.

You claim that you WANT rules, that you REQUIRE them, that you COULD NOT POSSIBLY FUNCTION WITHOUT THEM, and then you complain that the owner of a house might not change his rules to suit you???

I read a VERY good book this weekend from Tom Kratman. The name of the book is “State of Disobedience”. The thing about the book is that is a very plausible situation that could very well happen today. If you read it you will see what I mean. LOI would probably in particular like it. Probably D13 and TexasChem too.

Well, this is a fiction book. But the situation in the book could be in the process of happening right now. Made my skin crawl. I don’t think Obama has that radical an agenda. But a lot of the things being done by the Govt in that book OUR Govt is trying to do now.

Yeah, we are pretty pissed right now but, for the most part, we have a decent control of our legislature and we do vote and we do keep the bad boys out on the State side….we do our best Nationally but it will take 49 other States….Unless you count like Obama,,,,have not found 51-57 yet.

Good morning all…..Ray, LOI, and JAC. Gentlemen..I have not forgotten your questions of last week and I have not forgotten that I owe you an answer. Had several things pending that required attention and instead of giving an off the cuff answer, I waited. Today, I actually have off and will dedicate it to finishing my web site. A whole lot more work than anticipated. Most of your questions will be answered there and I will send my promised link when finished.

Comment here to USW…..I do have a retired Nuclear Physicist in the family. Studied at Berkley..you know, the whole bit. Makes for interesting conversations. Brief background is that he was assigned to Los Alamos, New Mexico and was employed there until the Clinton administration gave it to the Chinese. They (the Chinese)are there now. He is retired in Jemez Springs, just over the pass. His second love is astronomy and the ecology. Has his own little observatory in his backyard and living in Jemez Springs, with no back lights and thin atmosphere, he has a pretty good unrestricted view. Anyway, being from Berkley, and was engaged in research about bending laser beams, his view on global warming is that it is crap. His view point and background research shows him that we are in a cyclical change that has been occurring over the last 400 years, losing 1/2 degree every 100-110 years to warming. He has sat in many conferences and listened and compared notes. He is quick to say that he does not have the answers but is also quick to note that the earth’s oceans put out more carbon dioxide than all the man made products combined. He says, and many agree, that the Earth is coming out of a mini ice age. The polar ice caps will not melt away, according to him ,and California will not fall off into the Ocean. Millions will not drown and the polar bears and seals will not die…due to warming. He studies weather patterns and the hurricanes and the typhoons are not due to man made global warming but due to sun’s rotation and the fact that the earth has shifted on it’s axis 1.137652 degrees ( his numbers as of this weekend ) and that changes the weather pattern. He also says that the most Draconian measures…stop the factories and the cars, turn out the lights, ground all planes…ride horses and have no pollutants at all, will not reverse what nature has intended and the carbon dioxide output from the oceans will simply continue to increase. He also said to quit cutting down the rain forests. But, he said, if the entire North American continent was a rain forest, we would still have global warming and rising carbon dioxide.

I find this very interesting and did some of my own research and found conflicting theories and theories that agreed with his. It is also interesting to note that he was trained in Berkley, which he and I always conflict anyway…good nature, of course. He is very left….VERY left, by my estimation…but agrees that global warming is a scam and is cyclical…not man made. He is not published but he is sought out from time to time for his astrological and ecological conclusions.

And, USW, let’s see if my beloved Cowboys can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. At least my alma mater, The University of Texas (class of 1969), beat Texas Tech this year. Have a great day.

May have to tell the Tigers to take it easy on us. Our Defense could use some major work, But mainly we have not played a single nobody team. FL plays Southern Charleston State the first game. SCSU? That’s like LSU playing the Mud Dogs from the Waterboy movie.

Tigers have not really played anyone…and they look pretty shaky to me…looks like the #4 ranking will not last long…they play the Gators the week after Georgia…It is my belief they will lose both of those…and they have Alabama and Ole Miss yet to go as well…

Good Morn, JAC…..weekend went well. Being retired as a Colonel, I do get hired as an independent contractor by the Army from time to time. I have been working with the Army and the National Guard to further close up the border in Texas and reduce drug trafficking. IT is beginning to work…the druggies are heading to New Mexico and to California which welcomes all….there is one hell of a battle going on in El Paso/Juarez. Over 2,000 dead this year already. Drug wars among themselves. We are trying to keep it in the Mexican side. They can kill each other. Unfortunately, many civilians dying but that is a Mexican problem. It is on their side of the border. We are trying to contain it.

As much as we up here enjoy seeing their success, reality is they are not #5 but may finish in the top 10 if go undefeated. The WAC is tough though. They will get a bowl bid but not a championship chance.

It is shaping up to be an interesting year though. Could have all with 1 or 2 losses by the end.

Terry, we all know that the BCS is about money…and only money along with TV ratings. Without a playoff system…a true playoff system, there is no real National Champion….and that from a University of Texas Alumni who is used to National Championships and top ten ratings. A college playoff system is attainable very easy. Then the teams like Boise State or TCU or BYU can win their conferences and try for the number 1 spot. Subjective decisions on “who” has the roughest schedule is BS…but this is another topic…..LOL.

It’s the size of the players. Men as big as NFL Linebackers and Defensive Ends hitting each other full speed with 0 pads. Saw one for the Something or other Bulldogs get knocked slam out Friday night. I was impressed. They’d tote me out on a stretcher 2 minutes into the game even in my prime, much less now.

Like most here, I do not think the earth is warming, and any warming/cooling will predominantly be caused by the sun’s cyclic weather. Any who have ignored Alan’s post on sun spots have missed the true cause. But it’s a free country, you can keep blaming Bush for everything you want to.

Speaking of Bush. I did not like his policies any more than I like Obama’s. I am more aware of the political crap now than I was then, but I have no excuse. I was politically asleep, just like most of the Nation was.

I, however, had someone tell me, when I called Obama a worthless bastard, that I should show more respect, at least for the office of POTUS.

You know, that REALLY pissed me off. Not because they particularly said it to me, but because of who said it. This was one of the same people who, a year or so before, was calling Bush everything but a White Boy.
When Jimmy Carter got up at Coretta Scott King’s funeral with one of her daughters and turned the funeral into a Bush Bashing contest.
Laughing because some raghead asshole reporter threw a shoe at the POTUS.
And agreeing with Kanye West when he said that Bush made that Hurricane Katrina hit N.O because he hated black people.
When Hugo “ShitforBrains” Chavez called him the Devil.

And now, Obama blames Bush for every frickin’ thing from Global Warming to Pissing off Iran. Meanwhile this fool apologizes for America in EVERY international speech he makes. And these folks think I should show respect for the man who will be mainly responsible for destroying our American way of life?

I tell you what, crap in one hand and wish in the other. See which one gets full the fastest.

Sorry dude, meant it to be funny. I don’t recall anyone blaming global warming on Bush. They bash him for not fighting it. But even the liberals are starting to smell something.

“The president’s problem isn’t that he is too visible; it’s the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words “I” and “my.” (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.

There is only so much political mileage that can still be had by his reminding the world that he is not George W. Bush. It was the winning theme of the 2008 campaign, but that race ended nearly a year ago. The ex-president is now more ex than ever, yet the current president, who vowed to look forward, is still reaching back to Bush as bogeyman.”

I didn’t mean YOU were Bush bashing anyway LOI. Besides, as I said, I think he was a terriblw Prez too. But damn it aggravates me that the Loons are still throwing his name up.

Jeez, give the poor old dog a break. He wasn’t any worse than some others.

I think the maddest I’ve ever been was watching Jimmy Carter bash him at that funeral. That not only disrespected him, it really disrepected the King family. It was her FUNERAL, for God’s sake!

As much as I don’t care for his decisions and policies I have to say the man has class not to retaliate with everything said about him. I can assure you that I would not be so nice. Somebody would be wearing their butt for a hat. 😀

Esom, I understood your meaning, and like Kathy and others, I get a kick out of you expressing yourself. And I like squirrel meat myself. Oct. 1st is opening day bow season for deer. Any tears for Bambi?

Just a wrinkle on that LOI – as I live outside Philly I get to see some of the commercials run for the Gov. candidates (Corzine and Christie). Corzine is running ads trying desperately to make a Christie-Bush II link – honestly it aggravates the shit out of me. Run on your own merits and stop with this b.s. of trying to bash the guy no longer in office – its old and tired. I think Corzine will lose and deservedly so.

Find some good solid neighbors. Shake the bulldookie out of the SOB’s.

Make em answer real questions.

I watched a republican fry a Republican Chief of Staff last week over health care when he accidently stated that the Congressman agreed we had a “broken” system and needed to take action ASAP, but it just needed to be elphant soup instead of donkey soup.

She pointed out that our economy and the current bailouts were a “ponzy scheme” and the Congressman had better start being straight with folks about what role congress had in all this mess. Lets say that started the ball rolling and it wasn’t the love fest the young Repub. was expecting from a Repub. central committee.

Ray Hawkins for Gov. I can see you carrying around a .50 cal Hawken Rifle for a symbol. Back to basics. Common sense govt.

Howdy there Esom, hope the world is treating you well today. Mine started a bit rough this morning; hit a deer going to work. Score: Jeep 0 – deer 1. Lucky for me I had just turned out of the driveway and had just started picking up speed when a big doe ran in the road. Headlights and brackets gone, air conditioner condenser gone, transmission oil cooler gone, grill gone, radiator gone and right quarter panel bent. This one will cost the insurance company some big bucks. The only consolation prize I got out of it is there are 2 front quarters, 2 hind quarters and 2 back straps soaking in the frig right now. Deer season does not start till Nov. 20th, so I got a jump on the venison this year. Only thing is it will be the most expensive meat I have ever had.

I’d like to see President Bush back in office just so the Irainans would be peaceful again. I mean, anytime President Bush tried to keep them in line, the world proclaimed how peaceful Iran is/was. Yet when Obama is in office, all of a sudden, the Iranians are menacing. What’s up with that?????

LOI, few are those who go that extra mile to understand the “hows and whys” behind things that affect them directly. Most are more than ready to merely accept what’s being presented in the main stream media as gospel. They also are too trusting of the MSM’s pitch “You’re not intelligent enough to understand so just sit back, relax and accept.”

USW take all the time you need. This is the only site I have found that gives reasonable feedback to my questions/comments. Other sites either limit my posts or dont post them at all. I hope the Mrs. feels better soon. Thank you for a great site.

I just received in the mail an overview of my 2010 Medical Plan Features (our enrollment period is rapidly approaching).

Anyway, under the “What’s New” Section, the first bullet is:

Per-pay-period costs for medical coverage will not increase for associates who earn less than $50,000 in annual cash commpensation and are not in a job code considered fully commissioned. Increases for all other associates will be held to less than the national average.

**************************
I am yet unaware of the amount of the increase. I won’t find that out for another couple of weeks.

Okay…so now, I’m being punished for making over $50 k a year. Wow…socialism is so cool and so PC that even corporations are embracing it…OR…I wonder if this was a requirement as part of receiving TARP funds! I work as hard or harder, but I have to pay more because I make more…I really do object to this.

My husband and I run a small business, our Workman’s Comp. insurance has just come up for renewal and I got a call the other day from my insurance guy-he said because of some change in Washington-we now have to count my husbands income under workman’s comp. -Which means more overhead for small business.

If he calls himself an employee, there might be an issue according to your State. I own my business and I am NOT an employee. I am an owner, therefore, exempt from W/C. However, I am not aware of any Federal Mandate on this. I will check. In Texas, we have the option of opting out of W/C and going self insured. Since we now have reformed the W/C laws and tort reform threw out the ambulance chasers, it is affordable in both spectra.

But, beware of mandates on employee salary. If you own your business, take draws and not salary.

It seems that the “No Tax Increase” for those earning less than $250,000 per year was really $150,000 per year and is really $50,000 per year. Given the trend it looks like next comes $5000, then $500 then $50.

Its a tongue in cheek joke, kind of. The govt is dictating B of A’s business. Now if as part of TARP big Uncle says you gotta give those under 50K a break on health insurance costs then Uncle has in effect dictated a tax increase for those over 50K.

Whether they did this or not, I don’t know.

But you are going to start paying higher fees for many things that have increased govt costs attached. While not a true TAX by definition these are in effect tax increases. Because without the govt intervening and driving up these costst then no increase in fee would occur.

That is the game of fascism Todd, pass the costs of political policy onto the citizens through higer costs in the private sector. Thus creating the illusion that no taxes were needed. I might add, that socialism, corporatism or mercantileism have the same effect.

I can agree that some form of rules have come into play since the beginning of time, but they were (and had to have been) arbitrary rules used for convenience. There are no set of rules that apply across the board. Even taking thou shall not kill and apply it (which I don’t believe is the case), once people are faced with starvation or slavery (the bondage kind–not BF kind), etc., there will be resistance and death. Those who kill for the right to eat, say, will think they have the right (survival); those who kill those trying to eat will think they have the right (defense).

I don’t doubt rules (or some form of compromise) have existed outside of gov’t in primitive settings but again, that can only happen in a very small environment that can provide enough resources, etc., to satisfy basic needs. Once you engaged in the high tech world we now live in … with 300,000,000 people to deal with and limited resources (ever decreasing resources while populations explode) how on earth could any set of rules come from the sky (or wherever you propse they come from) to apply across the board (in the sense everybody will adhere to them) or enough will adhere to them so there isn’t total chaos.

Please give a hearty good morning to your Mrs. from my house to yours.

Now for some old fart revelations, which I can do because I am an old fart.

Way back in the early 1950’s I asked my fifth grade teacher why I could not see the horizon, and why did the air seem murky.

Now you must understand that this man had flown well over one hundred missions as a navigator in a B-17 during WW2 and returned in one piece each and every time, so he knew a little bit about atmospheric conditions.

His answer was something like this; The air always has moisture in it and moisture is water, and we all know that from playing in mud puddles that water grabs dirt and hangs on to it, so since the air has moisture in it the moisture grabs these really small particles of dirt and hangs on to them as it floats around in the air it just makes the air look hazy and murky sometimes. That answer satisfied my fifth-grade curiosity . . . for a while.

I also remember reading in the newspaper that the air was being so polluted way down there in L.A. (I lived in Seattle) that no one could see across the street – now this was before color pictures were ever put in newspapers for those of you who are so young that this might remind you of stories of ancient times. I am just an old fart, not an ancient old fart.

My fifth-grade teacher explained to us that it was caused by the smoke from so many cars down there in L.A. That was something we could actually see, that smoke from car exhausts since most engines still had blow-by oil vents.

Something else we all learned in the fifth-grade way back then was that this Earth of ours did not have a perfect orbit around the sun . . . it wobbles a little now and then causing it to cool sometimes (Ice-Ages) and warm sometimes (like now).

Here is something also you might like to know; I have seen photographs in the National Geographic that were taken around ca 1900 or so or even maybe earlier that showed the Yellowstone and Yosemite areas before they were national parks and compared them with recent photographs taken from the same vantage points. They both seem to have sprouted about twice as many trees as they used to have way back then – Why? Because, as my fifth-grade teacher had explained to us little question askers, wherever mankind goes he plants trees. Trees, it seems, give off oxygen and take in carbon dioxide (the stuff we breath in and then exhale).

It seems to me that the amount of trees has grown in direct relation to the amount of population growth in north America.

I have just one question; Do they still teach that level of practicality in the fifth-grade nowadays? If not, why not?

GA…I don’t understand….you want practicality? You want to make sense? You actually want logic? Holy black and white tv’s and transistor radios, my old fart friend….you are not mainstream now. You live in a dream world according to the “progressive movement”? WE grew up with practical, logical, and sensible…real math, phonics, spelling, grammar, and writing. We grew up with movies that did not lip sync and actually sang their songs.

Now, we have no phonics, no spelling, Ebonics and border Spanish, new math, no diagramming of sentences and no failing grades because it is demeaning, no real musicals and movies, etc.

The Earth still rotates and the Sun still controls our weather and the moon the tides. Simple, logical, reasoned. I don’t understand why you want to use the very things that made our country the best. Shame on you. Have you no sense of shame wanting to be better than the rest of the world? Do you wish to disavow your “Lemming” training from the past 8 months? You want to actually be American again? Sheesh. I suppose you want freedom next.

I already addressed this. Vastly accepted is not universally accepted. No “law” (natural or otherwise) is ever going to get 100% support. ”

Here is an example of the circle you create. You argue that “natural law” will not work because everyone will not accept it. Then you argue that “no law” is ever going to be fully accepted. If your argument against law is because it will not be accepted by everyone then;

This is an argument for NO LAW which means NO RULES. Yet we know that humans have developed with all types of rules governing our behavior in ways that allow us to surivive and expand.

If you really do want to understand these ideas and the basis for BF’s end game then you have to let your focus on the end game go for now. It is the result of a series of concepts and constructs that lead to that answer. You can not see its possibilities because you reject all foundations that support it, yet you haven’t even discussed those foundations.

For example, all people do not have to agree to a given rule. Rules do not have to be uniform for 300 million people because we know that 300 million people do not interact with each other on even an occassional basis.

Your assertions that Anarchy will not work ignores the morality of such a society and then how such a morality is established.

You claim we are dog eat dog, thus savages. If that is true, if we will devolve to taking what we want then perhaps BF’s world won’t work. But you never ask whether your assumptions about human nature are in fact valid. There is much evidence to the contrary.

You claim govt is needed to prevent chaos in a society where order is needed because we are savages. But that means you have put savages in control of the govt. Thus creating order from chaos, by giving ultimate power to initiate violence against innocents to the very Savages you condemn. This argument does not appear logical as your solution does not solve the stated problem. It will in fact result in more deaths than a nation of savages without govt. In the latter, the innocent would at least be justified in defending themselves against the agressors.

“Here is an example of the circle you create. You argue that “natural law” will not work because everyone will not accept it. Then you argue that “no law” is ever going to be fully accepted. If your argument against law is because it will not be accepted by everyone then;

This is an argument for NO LAW which means NO RULES. Yet we know that humans have developed with all types of rules governing our behavior in ways that allow us to survive and expand.”

It is not an argument for NO LAW/NO RULES. The only rules and/or laws that can hold a society (or any mass of people) in check (restrict their freedoms if you prefer or, a necessary evil, if you prefer) MUST be made by men with other men (Government/tribal contracts, etc.). A body (gov’t) needs to be in place (by, of and for the people) or you have chaos. It is an absolute impossibility for 300,000,000 (forget the rest of the world) to live with absolute freedom (that is a nirvana only the way pure communism is a nirvana only—in theory only).

“Your assertions that Anarchy will not work ignores the morality of such a society and then how such a morality is established”

Morality is yet another ambiguous term defined by whose ox is gored (i.e., I think gays should have the right to marry but there are others who feel just as strongly that gays shouldn’t have the right to marry). Let’s not get into abortion, etc. The point being, morality is as nebulous as common or natural law. It means different things to different people.

“But you never ask whether your assumptions about human nature are in fact valid. There is much evidence to the contrary.”

Here you have some validity because I do not know if my belief is valid. However, it is what I believe; that man alone cannot be trusted to do the right thin whereas men can keep individual men in check from doing the wrong thing (not all the time, but enough so that societies can co-exist). I don’t buy into BF’s argument that just because I don’t believe a single man can’t be trusted, therefore several men can’t be trusted. It’s the basis of regulation—a necessary evil to some, a requirement to others and an abhorrence to you and BF. So it goes.

Let’s take these things one at a time. First lets address your argument regarding natural law.

Here is the re-cap.

JAC: ““Here is an example of the circle you create. You argue that “natural law” will not work because everyone will not accept it. Then you argue that “no law” is ever going to be fully accepted. If your argument against law is because it will not be accepted by everyone then;
This is an argument for NO LAW which means NO RULES.

GG: It is not an argument for NO LAW/NO RULES.

This is the source of frustration by me, BF, Peter and others. It is that your argument is in fact circular, in its appearance. This is the only LOGICAL conclusion I can reach based on what appears to be your premise.

Now it may not be, if the assumptions within it are in fact not what they appear to be. For example, as I stated you appear to be using the fact that not 100% will agreet to support a conclusion that natural law either does not exist or can not work.

If that is your argument then you have argued for no law. Because you will never get 100% agreement. Therefore, if agreement is required for laws to work then laws will never work, and therefore there is no reason to have laws.

However, it may be that you really mean something else. But I can only go on the words you write.

It is the same problem with your argument over the nature of one man vs. a group. If, as you claim, no man can be trusted then logically no group of men can be trusted.

The only way for individual untrustworthy men to suddenly become trustworthy once in a group is what? Are you claiming that govt will make them trustworthy?

Its interesting that “Common Law” was in place before any law enacted by any national government. Throughout history, small groups became communities, then towns and cities, and their laws date back to the agreements made by a co-operative group of families. Common law used to be law known to all, even those who could not read, it was passed on through oral teaching.

“Judge-made common law operated as the primary source of law for several hundred years, before Parliament acquired legislative powers to create statutory law. It is important to understand that common law is the older and more traditional source of law, and legislative power is simply a layer applied on top of the older common law foundation. Since the 1100s, courts have had parallel and co-equal authority to make law”

And then our founders, in a moment of less infenite wisdom, created a system that undermined “common law” by allowing govt to replace it with govt edicts.

I never had much understanding of common law until I started studying the constitution and the debates prior to ratification. The loss of common law was one of the biggest concerns among the learned men who engaged in the debate.

If we are talking domestic stock then I say Chicken first cause what we got now is surely a Turkey. Now if your talking wild game its alot tougher, cause the wild turkey sure aint no dummy.

Remember, on those cold nights, a shot of Wild Turkey will put a fire in your belly. Its kinda interesting how you, Flag and I can reach a similar conclusion, even though we base it on different starting points. It seems to me that GG has no interest in thinking this thru, and keeps a circular argument going?

And GG, do not include me with Flag on saying NO government is necessary. I advocate Very Damn Little Government, not no government.

It’s over, BF, Life, Citz, etc. I really don’t have the time to type the same answers over and over. You find it illogical that several men can come to compromise and check one man from acting against the greater good interest because I believe no single man can be trusted to do the right thing. I say we live that way now; exactly that way (under governments).

Why don’t you tell me how your free society works? Just once.

I have stuff to do now … I’ll try and touch base later. I had started a response to Citizen but realized we were going in one big circle again.

Yes, I believe that although individual men cannot be trusted to do the right thing (for the sake of the greater good), several such men can (and do) check themselves by compromise and government. If that is illogical, then explain the current state of our being.

Better yet, just once provide the formula for your totally free society (but leave out the horseshit about logic and get to the point, please).

Later, dudes …

We’re at opposite ends of the political spectrum, except we (all of us) now live under governments because we cannot live without them. You prove how we can and I’ll pay attention again.

I believe that although individual men cannot be trusted to do the right thing (for the sake of the greater good), several such men can (and do) check themselves by compromise and government

How can untrusted men compromise and make a government? How can you trust the outcome?

If that is illogical, then explain the current state of our being.

Very good, GG.

Test your hypothesis against reality and see if it works.

By reason, untrusted men cannot create a trusted entity. They will infuse that entity with the same deficits they have.

So, your premise must be wrong – that is, ALL men are untrustworthy.

As you deftly pointed out, society cannot exist upon an immoral basis – it will confound itself and collapse.

That is why prohibitions against theft are part of natural law.

If theft was the norm, a society would collapse – therefore, no society of theft exists. Thus, theft is not supported in a sustainable society. The people in that society realize that theft simply cannot work.

Same with killing.

Same with stealing another mans wife.

…etc.

A society is sustainable when the participants realize that moral behavior is the optimum solution for prosperity in their personal lives.

You are obviously frustrated with JAC and BF. I understand their tactic. It has great merit, but I can see that you aren’t interested in their route.

So instead,I offer that on the Tuesday night open mic thread I will post a start to the conversation, and then just you and I will have the discussion. I will do my best to answer the questions you want answered, if you will do your best to keep an open mind to a different opinion being valid.

I understand you are frustrated, and I think it perhaps avoidable in my way of debate. Of course we may get frustrated and walk away from the debate after two answers, but I figured if you want to discuss it, I will offer to do it myself rather than you continuing to get frustrated with the way they are doing it. You up for it?

I think you have nailed our most important topic today. I am not a vet, and do not claim much knowledge about military matters. But what I have read about Vietnam, the US being divided on the war cost countless lives. Obama is delaying reading a report from his chosen general, who is asking for more troops?
The surge worked.
We are at war.
Quite playing games with our soldiers lives and fight to win, Oh Commander-in-Sheep.

“Obama and Duncan say kids in the United States need more school because kids in other nations have more school.

“Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here,” Duncan told the AP. “I want to just level the playing field.”

While it is true that kids in many other countries have more school days, it’s not true they all spend more time in school.

Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests — Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days).”

I so agree-if this country wants to have a debate whether or not we should continue with a war , fine, go right ahead, but while your doing it DO NOT put our love ones lives in danger by making military decisions based on political crap-fight to win-make decisions based on winning and protecting their lives-if the ones in control can’t do that -then bring them home NOW!!

I’ve liked Bjorn Lomborg since reading The Skeptical Environmentalist. It’s unusual to read someone who believes in global warming but has the sense to stand back a say “don’t we have more important things to worry about”. BTW he is one of the critics of ole Al G that constantly challenges him to a debate but constantly gets ignored.

The Earth does get warmer and it does get cooler. Point #1 is evidently obvious – but because climate changes does not make point #2 the cause.

The rest of his article aligns with a number of others – it makes no sense to bizarrely alter our freedom and pervert economics to deal with any change that needs more than 25 years to manifest.

One simply needs to look back to 1985 and consider that today’s world was wholly unpredictable. We cannot (or crudely at best) believe we know what the issues for humanity will be in 25 years, let alone 50 or 100 years.

I’m still amazed that noone can predict the weather a week in advance with any remote accuracy, yet we actually have people believe this Al Gore Bull#$%#. I wonder if these folks built a reenforced roof structure that can stop the sky from falling into their house?

I like Michael Shermer. He is a (mostly-)libertarian who refuses to really examine the reasons he clings to the last bits of statism he doesn’t want to turn loose of. I generally agree with him on most things. (No, the earth is not still “warming”, and the warming it underwent in the past was not anthropogenic.)

The conversation went like this…
Iranian Air Defense Radar: ‘Unknown aircraft you are in Iranian airspace. Identify yourself.’
Aircraft: ‘This is a United States aircraft. I am in Iraqi airspace.’
Air Defense Radar: ‘You are in Iranian airspace. If you do not depart our airspace we will launch interceptor aircraft!’
Aircraft: ‘This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send ’em up, I’ll wait!’
Air Defense Radar: (no response …. total silence)

I dunno D13, I was at least nervous the first, last, and only time I had an Iranian missle pointed at me with a verbal threat to accompany it. I wasn’t in an F-18 though. I was on a rusty virtually unarmed rusty floating rusty warehouse of 500,000 gallons of fuel and 1 million lbs. of ordinance. Did I mention she was rusty? lol.

Did I tell you there was a sign at the Milwaukee Rally a couple weeks ago that said, “Pirates against….”
can’t remember if the end was Obamacare, Washington, government, violence on a non-violent person or what. The guy didn’t have on a black hat, so figured it wasn’t you.

USW, Not that you need my approval, but I applaud you for having your priorities straight. Take you’re sweet time on part 2. It’ll probably be a better article anyway.

Global warming? I don’t buy it. There’s probably SOME effect we’re having, but I serioulsy doubt it’s anywhere near what they(batshit crazy eco-nuts) make it out to be. You can’t deny L.A. or NYC smog if you’ve ever seen it. But the problem isn’t about temperature/global warming if you ask me…It’s about toxins. That’s how were harming the enviroment. We’re not baking the earth to death, we’re poisoning it.

I’m all for going green. It just makes sense. Even if the negative effect humans are having on the enviroment is very small, eventually it will get bad. I say go green as a preventative measure. It’s not like we have 1,234,024,353,457 Earth-like planets. If we did, I would say that we can afford to trash a few…but we don’t. We have one. It might be wise to take care of it. And when I say “going green”, I mean making simple changes in our everyday lives…like suplementing home electric with affordable wind power systems and solar cells, NOT by making some kind of tax that does nothing but fill someone else’s pocket. The day I get a paycheck with an air tax taken out is the same day I go batshit too. Don’t tax me bro.

Just curious about the “going green” stuff. I live in a part of the country that it would never be cost effective, and impossible to go wind (not enough average wind speed and they won’t let me put up a 90 wind turbine in my back yard) or solar (not enough average days of sun, not to mention that they won’t allow me to put up enough solar panels on my roof).

I’m not sure the eco-nuts thought of this, of course I’m not sure they are capable of that!

It was a bit funny, just wish it was Obama in the picture. I’d like to find a picture of Bush dressed up like Scrooge, cuz that’s what he is compared the current Pantystain living in the Whitehouse. OOPS, I’m meant President, darn this evil keyboard!

Relative to Iran….What should we do if anything with the the current situation?

We should engage the Iranians diplomatically. They are not an unreasonable people.

The USA administration must realize this (and this is the key for us, the PEOPLE, to understand)

Americans sit on the Eastern and Western borders of Iran, and we have hundreds of thousands of troops in command.

Americans have multiple bases from which to assault Iran in the North.

Americans are sailing two (and at times three) full naval task forces in the South of Iran.

The USA – by policy and action – has surrounded Iran.

If we, the PEOPLE, do not understand how Iran feels, we are ignorant.

If the USA was surrounded in the same way by, say, Russia – would you not be somewhat seriously concerned of the motivations of Russia?

Now, add in that the USA has already perverted your democratic processes, overthrown your democratic leadership and installed a horrific regime that created what was known as the most vicious Secret Police in the world – exceeding the KGB.

Now, how would you respond??

The difficultly in answering your question is that the USA has purposely acted and created this situation.

So asking now ‘how should we deal with Iran’ is actually very bizarre.

If, suddenly, you or I got control of the administration, our first step would to relieve the Iranians of being surrounded.

No person or nation will react well with threats on every front.

But, we must remember – right now – this is strategy by design that has been in play since the fall of the Shah.

What I am saying is – the USA is provoking the Iranians on purpose.

How should the military be handeling this issue?

Now, this is interesting.

The US military are very aware that Iran would, asymmetrically destroy the USA.

We are in a bizarre situation – it was supposed to be the civilian government holding back the military from action – we have the military holding back the civilian government from devastating action!

We must pray that the US military remains the sanest part of this issue!

If they launch against Israel how should we respond, if at all?

Of course, a response must be made.

There is no cause – Iran initiating on Israel or Israel on Iran – that can be allowed.

No matter which way, the USA will be devastated. The USA must actively – for the survival of this nation – must block any offensive action, regardless of who starts it.

Are they a real threat?

No.

Nearly 300 years, Iran has not initiated an attack on any nation.

They had their fill of Empire. They are not interested.

They will respond – devastatingly – to any attack on them.

What about Afganisan? Should we bring the boys home and let that country to it’s own fortune or demise?

Yes. No more need be said here.

Both my son and my nephew have spent 2 tours in Iraq and they both say we should get out and leave them to their own fate, we are not going to convert them to a Democracy or Republic.

I know this should be for a later day, but in what way could Iran possibly devistate our country? They couldn’t beat Iraq in 8 years.

Disclaimer: I do NOT desire anymore conflict in that region. Either the U.S. should finish the job or get out, or both. I don’t see Iran as a major threat, but can see it from how you put their point of view. Good points Pirate!

Is this even possible with our Navy so strong in the region (not that I think anything will happen, cuz I don’t). If Iran could achieve this, wouldn’t we end being in the same economic situation we’re headed for now, just faster?

Sorry for all the questions! In return, I raise my beer in toast to you and all my friends here!!!

I have thought about this all evening. The Mayor of Freeport Pennsylvania passed away today. He was a very good friend of the family. He was not your typical politician, he was honest. Bob Ravotti was everything we would all wish for in an American. His service to his community spanned 3 decades, having won his last election as a independent write-in, crushing party politics. A great husband, father, friend and a true American, I think he would like this small tribute to everything he has done good in his life. Mayor Ravotti, your family, all of us will miss you dearly! See you in heaven!

When My parents were remarried for the second time, Bob did the marrying part as an elected official of PA.

About a half later, the night before rifle season for deer, Bob and his crew came to the camp to share some cocktails (alot of them). We had a friend from here who recently had open heart surgery, and had noone to hunt with, so Dad brought him up so he could hunt (He just joined my department in the last month).

Anyway, here’s a dozen guys, drinking beer and shots, and Dad (which he will never forgive me for this) decides too explain to our new hunter about Bob and his roll in his recent wedding.

Quote from Dad as he introduces Bob to our new hunter: ” This is Bob, the Mayor of Freeport PA, and he married me last July”.

Silence fell, and in my most serious voice I said ” Best piece of ass he ever had!”

Needless to say there were eleven men on the floor just rolling, with poor Dad as red faced as anyone could imagine, but laughing.

I have to say something here, and I want to get this off my chest. I read some of the post today, not a whole lot, so I’m not sure all this has been brought up today, so please, bear with me here, that’s all I ask.

What exactly is wrong with Obama? This is why I ask. He hasn’t addressed ACORN, avoiding the issues with Iran, wants to put more sanctions on Iran, he wants to talk with them, not take a firm stand with them, changing his mind daily on Afghanistan it seems, trying to cram this health care bill down our throats,whether we want it or not, wanting to make kids stay in school longer, and shorten their summer vacation, and now, he’s trying to get the 2016 Olympics in Chicago. Where does his priorities lie at? As far as I can see, with the Olympics, don’t they have a committee for that? Since when does the president of the U.S.A. try and get the Olympics to do what he wants. Could it be, because he’s from there? Lat me think about that one. Answer, YES.

I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t keep quiet any longer, this is getting to the point of lunacy if you ask me. Of course, this is just my opinion only.

Actually Shermer may be onto a viable strategy to blunt the worst of the AGW crowd’s intentions. Attacking AGW head on threatens the organism and stimulates the immune system. We know the arguments are emotional hence are nearly impossible to beat with logic and data. So instead of attacking the stampeding heard head on, deflect it. Run it in circles until they come to their senses or the movement runs out of steam. Time is not on their side. They must get their legislation through quickly to control the masses before the masses understand the true threat. Once enacted, these laws will not be reversed. So the best hope may be gridlock and when that fails, deflection.